How is our world going to be re-shaped and why? The industrial revolution

Emma Robertson

Active Member
According to the numbers on your spreadsheet above: the rate of deforestation in the Amazon was high and fluctuating before 2004, with a maximum of ~29,000 km2 per year in 1995. Then started a consistent decline which continued until 2012, which was a result of a very successful Brazilian conservation program. After 2012 the trend has reversed, and the rate of deforestation has increased 60% since its minimum. Under Bolsonaro, it's feared that the situation could go back to 2004 or worse.
The spreasheet starts in the 70s and you can clearly see that since then deforestation has consistently decreased. Fear of what could be are just personal opinions, not backed up by numbers. The increase by 60% you are mentioning is ridiculously low comparing to previous decades to be worried about, and numbers are not supporting a rising trend back to 2004 or before. Actually it's too early to see any rising trend in numbers.

Bolsonaro is not a threat, he just played at being lax about Amazon protection.

You should be happy that Amazon forest in not being damaged as they would want us to believe.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Those who intentionally spread misinformation are pathetic to me, and it should be a crime. Because it is willfully done knowing that it will damage others or the collective life.
It's really hard to prove that disinformation is being spread willingly and intentionally. But I personally feel it should be a crime, for media sources to fail to disclose financial conflicts of interest, and especially those related to funding from government sources and major corporations.

What about those who continue to promote misinformation, even after they are presented with clear evidence of error?

For example, consider the headline quoted above:

"Even if the entire Amazon rainforest burned down, we'd be okay.

Here is some information from the body of that very article:

The resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon, which had decreased more than 80% following a peak in 2004, is alarming for many reasons. Tropical forests harbor many species of plants and animals found nowhere else. They are important refuges for indigenous people, and contain enormous stores of carbon as wood and other organic matter that would otherwise contribute to the climate crisis.
[....]
In sum, Brazil's reversal on protecting the Amazon does not meaningfully threaten atmospheric oxygen. Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure. There's enough oxygen in the air to last for millions of years, and the amount is set by geology rather than land use. The fact that this upsurge in deforestation threatens some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich landscapes on Earth is reason enough to oppose it.
So, while the article is challenging the meme that there's any danger of exhausting the earth's supply of oxygen, the author was by no means intending to endorse burning the entire Amazon rainforest. And, contrary to your analysis of the figures, the author says there's an alarming resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon.

I seriously doubt if the author of the paper, even wrote that unfortunate headline. It's often the case that hurried editors are responsible for coming up with headlines for stories they've hardly read.

So what do you say, Emma? Can we at least get rid of this (presumably unintentional) misinformation or disinformation?

As an admin of this website, what do you think I should do when someone posts misinformation or disinformation here?
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Apart from assessing the material quoted...
As an admin of this website, what do you think I should do when someone posts misinformation or disinformation here?
...there is also the question of the poster him/herself and whether there is an underlying intent to deceive, apart from genuine confusion on the poster's part. (For the last phrase I suspect Jerry has me in mind.:rolleyes:)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
...there is also the question of the poster him/herself and whether there is an underlying intent to deceive, apart from genuine confusion on the poster's part.
Exactly. I had been hoping that Emma herself could see the incongruity between the Live Science article content, and its headline. Or perhaps that other posters would share my concern. But alas, nobody seems interested in "assessing the material quoted". So here it is, still on the website, more than a month later.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Emma's highlighted statement is false.
Actually no. We are talking about Greenland here I guess, after North Pole and South Pole have been easily debunked as not having the power of rising the see level, the first because made of just ice and the second because too freezing to get over 0 temperature for enough time.

But Greenland has been claimed to be rising as the glaciers melt, so it means, like Ruby was saying, that also land masses rise when ice on top of them melts.

https://phys.org/news/2010-05-greenland-rapidly-ice.html

You might argue that they do not rise enough to compensate the ice melting, but it doesn't look so.

Greenland glaciers are not melting faster than in the past. And with such sudden melting ices in the past we have never had troubles with see level rising...
Eustatic rebound after ice has melted is a very slow process and so does not compensate for rising sea levels at the rate that ice melts. But the big fact is that Greenland's ice sheet - all above sea level - is melting faster. Emma needs to provide proof of the opposite or correct her statement here.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Eustatic rebound after ice has melted is a very slow process and so does not compensate for rising sea levels at the rate that ice melts.
I agree. In fact , according to this author, the area of Stockholm is still rebounding after the last ice age, thus the sea level there is decreasing.

However this author also says that since the Medieval Little Ice Age ended, temperatures have been increasing and as a consequence the sea has been expanding and thus its level has been slightly increasing, an ongoing phenomenon. Such an increase though is not showing any acceleration and as such is not worrying.

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35

The sea levels increases that the global warming alarmists are reporting thus seem to have its origin in the end of the Little Ice Age and not in manmade pollution. Moreover such an increase fluctuates, with periods of ups and downs, as seen in the graphic. This current up is being taken by GW alarmists as a sign MMGW, rather than a natural fluctuation.


Greenland glaciers are not melting faster than in the past. And with such sudden melting ices in the past we have never had troubles with see level rising...

This statement, that you are claiming false, was referring to an article that I published in this thread, that I cannot find, maybe it's been removed. As far as I can recall, the article was explaining that it is not unusual for Greenland to have sudden exceptional melting ices for a short time, so what is going on now is not alarming. My inference was that with such sudden melting ices we have never experienced any problematic increase in see level.

ADDITION

I searched in my data base and I found the article: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/if-greenland-is-catastrophically-melting-how-do-alarmists-explain-nasas-growing-greenland-glacier/


"In the image above, you can see that there’s a quick batch of surface meltwater visible to satellite. The cause was simple, and not catastrophic. In fact, it happens regularly on century-long scales.

It turned out to be a weather event, unrelated to “climate change”. The next year, there was no “insta-melt“.

In fact we’d not even know about the melting in Greenland before satellites came on the scene. So how many times in the history of the Earth has Greenland had a quick melt spike? I’m guessing hundreds of thousands of times."
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Time has passed, my investigations have gone on, I have become more knowlegded in relevant matters, a lot of things have changed in my perception. Without getting into details, and just out of a sense of duty not to mislead others into believing something that is not true, I can now say that I do not support the theory I expressed in this thread anymore. I don't see anymore a possible 3 centuries long conspiracy to bring us all to utmost poverty to counterract the industrial revolution and the population growth.

Actually, I don't support anymore most conspiracies out there (some of them agreed upon in this forum), on which my theory was built. For example I don't share anymore the belief that there is a conspiracy to drastically reduce the world population, nor that there is a related planned "end of the world" conspiracy, staging what is written in the Bible and in some prophecies, nor that major heads of governments around the world are in collusion to bring about a "new world order". I don't believe in secret societies ruling the world, anymore. Nor in H.A.A.R.P weapons nor in chemtrails.

I know it would be useful to explain in details why my view has changed, but I don't feel drawn anymore to invest a lot of time to write in this forum, I have distanced myself too much from the views expressed here and it's been already unconfortable enough for me to express diverging views here. I gently leave you free to entertain your theories, while I will cherish my researches for myself. As far as I am concerned you are free to remove this thread from your forum and all my other interventions as well. There are still some that I consider valid (like the ones about MMGW and Russia threat), but even if they are erased it won't make much a change.

I still believe in the Flavian conspiracy at the time of the Flavians: that is something that cannot go away after reading Atwill's book, but I don't see that conspiracy going on until today, apart from churches capitalizing on those lies to have followers still today.

I want to aknowledge though, that it's been useful for me to participate in this forum. Despite the conflicts, I find correct to attribute to Russel his own merit, and in my case it's been to help me ground myself in what is real instead of floating in conspiracy theories. His scientific attitute, coupled with my willingness to find the truth, has given me the push to better research matters.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Without getting into details, and just out of a sense of duty not to mislead others into believing something that is not true, I can now say that I do not support the theory I expressed in this thread anymore.
Emma, how very gracious of you to stop by and let us know about your change of heart. This is a very rare thing, to see someone grow and change and step into bigger shoes.

Actually, I don't support anymore most conspiracies out there (some of them agreed upon in this forum), on which my theory was built. For example I don't share anymore the belief that there is a conspiracy to drastically reduce the world population, nor that there is a related planned "end of the world" conspiracy, staging what is written in the Bible and in some prophecies, nor that major heads of governments around the world are in collusion to bring about a "new world order". I don't believe in secret societies ruling the world, anymore. Nor in H.A.A.R.P weapons nor in chemtrails.
Richard and I (and various other posters here) don't necessarily share identical views on these conspiracies either.

There might not be any conspiracy to reduce world population, but there are many powerful individuals who think it would be a good idea. And as a neo-Malthusian, I don't see how present population levels and rates of increase can be maintained for much longer, even with the best of intentions.

We do argue that Biblical prophecies are very important. Are they being re-enacted in every detail by some powerful secret society, or do they function primarily as cultural memes that become self-fulfilling? We're here to present information, and explore the possibilities.

I don't know whether elite secret societies "rule the world", but they do exist and I think it's a mistake to be dismissive about their influence.

...it's been already unconfortable enough for me to express diverging views here. I gently leave you free to entertain your theories, while I will cherish my researches for myself.
I'm sorry if you've found us unwelcoming. If you do want to come back and discuss anything that interests you, I'll do my best to be polite and helpful.

And I'm curious if you've found some other forum where you are continuing to post?

As far as I am concerned you are free to remove this thread from your forum and all my other interventions as well.
Thank you. What I might do (as time permits) is add a few links to this new post of yours. I hope that readers who find their way to the archives of this site, will find it useful to review the give-and-take discussions of topics.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
I still believe in the Flavian conspiracy at the time of the Flavians: that is something that cannot go away after reading Atwill's book, but I don't see that conspiracy going on until today, apart from churches capitalizing on those lies to have followers still today.
I think that is the point, that the Flavians (and I am including their allies here, including Josephus/Paul according to Ralph Ellis) created what eventually became the original "church", the Roman Catholic Church, and that to this very day it exists behind everything else, along with its "controlled opposition" that "broke" away from it, all out in the "open" as part of the New World Order. However, if Tupper Saussy is correct, we have nothing to fear from this "rod of iron" if we obey its authorities and pay our taxes to them, for they have been appointed to punish evildoers by "God" for our own "good".
5And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons:
“My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”
Hebrews 12: 5,6, referring to Proverbs 3: 11,12:
11My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:
12For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth
 
Top